Could the Russians have won the Crimean War?

Was there anyway the Russians could have won the Crimean War after the French and British entered the war?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Define "won"

Was there anyway the Russians could have won the Crimean War after the French and British entered the war?

Define "won"...

The Turks had stopped the Russians in the Balkans by themselves (other than the nebulous threat of Austrian intervention) before any Allied (French, Turk, British, or Sardinian) set foot in the Crimea, and the Russians were on the way to defeating the Turks in northeastern Anatolia (as they did, historically, even with British "assistance.")

The Russians and Turks were - probably - on their way to a draw, at least in terms of geography, before the French and British declared war.

Best,
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Was there anyway the Russians could have won the Crimean War after the French and British entered the war?
Which theatre would they be winning in?

They'd have a job winning the Baltic, for example, because that was basically successive Allied assaults on forts.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Bomarsund wasn't Kronstadt.

Best,
Yes, I'm aware that a fort that was attacked and captured is not identical to another fort that was not attacked.

Though, in a hypothetical situation in which the war continued another few months, then the Allied fleet assembling to assault - say - Suomenlinna would be able to make its attack, and hence use shallow-draft bomb vessels to shell the fort productively.
A similar attack might also suffice to run the channels around Kronstadt, since the fort was not recently modernized (the Russians spent a lot of money updating it after the war).
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Right, and the reason why was?

Yes, I'm aware that a fort that was attacked and captured is not identical to another fort that was not attacked.

Though, in a hypothetical situation in which the war continued another few months, then the Allied fleet assembling to assault - say - Suomenlinna would be able to make its attack, and hence use shallow-draft bomb vessels to shell the fort productively.
A similar attack might also suffice to run the channels around Kronstadt, since the fort was not recently modernized (the Russians spent a lot of money updating it after the war).

Right, and the reason why was?

The Allies scouted Kronstadt twice during the war, under Napier in 1854 and Dundas again in 1855, and in both cases they chose not to attack because of the expected losses.

In 1854, they attacked Bomarsund (in the Aland Islands, i.e., closer to Sweden than Russia), and with the aid of 10,000 French troops and artillery ashore, took the archipelago.

In 1855, the Allies attacked Sveaborg (off Helsinki) and were repulsed. Not unlike 2nd Taku Forts (1859 version, where the RN lost three warships to the Chinese), Petropavlovsk, and the Dardanelles, ships operating alone didn't exactly sweep all before them.

But other than that, you're bang on.;)

Best,
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Right, and the reason why was?

The Allies scouted Kronstadt twice during the war, under Napier in 1854 and Dundas again in 1855, and in both cases they chose not to attack because of the expected losses.

In 1854, they attacked Bomarsund (in the Aland Islands, i.e., closer to Sweden than Russia), and with the aid of 10,000 French troops and artillery ashore, took the archipelago.

In 1855, the Allies attacked Sveaborg (off Helsinki) and were repulsed. Not unlike 2nd Taku Forts (1859 version, where the RN lost three warships to the Chinese), Petropavlovsk, and the Dardanelles, ships operating alone didn't exactly sweep all before them.

But other than that, you're bang on.;)

Best,
Interesting you have to clarify it's 1859 Taku, not 1858 or 1860 Taku.

I'll also note the Sea of Azov campaign which was ships operating alone and bombarding the heck out of Russian towns and forts essentially with impunity.

My point is that the Allies were not sitting on their hands and were in fact putting together more and more force for the 1856 campaign season.


By the way, any reason you didn't mention Charleston? That's another example of what you want to show...
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, there were three of them (four if you count the 1st Opium War)

Interesting you have to clarify it's 1859 Taku, not 1858 or 1860 Taku. I'll also note the Sea of Azov campaign which was ships operating alone and bombarding the heck out of Russian towns and forts essentially with impunity. My point is that the Allies were not sitting on their hands and were in fact putting together more and more force for the 1856 campaign season. By the way, any reason you didn't mention Charleston? That's another example of what you want to show...

Well, there were three of them (four if you count the 1st Opium War);).

Burning down undefended wooden towns...what was Gibson's quote, again?

"...a system which carried on a great war by plundering and destroying the property of defenceless villagers."

And Azov, of course, included the incident of a British warship being captured by horse cavalry, IIRC...

As far as anything else, since the OP's question was about the French and British, figured sticking to their operations seemed reasonable.

Presumably the Russians weren't sitting on their hands, either.

Of course, since the OP has yet to define what he means by "won" it is pretty wide open...

Best,
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Well, there were three of them (four if you count the 1st Opium War);).

Burning down undefended wooden towns...what was Gibson's quote, again?

"...a system which carried on a great war by plundering and destroying the property of defenceless villagers."

And Azov, of course, included the incident of a British warship being captured by horse cavalry, IIRC...

As far as anything else, since the OP's question was about the French and British, figured sticking to their operations seemed reasonable.

Presumably the Russians weren't sitting on their hands, either.

Of course, since the OP has yet to define what he means by "won" it is pretty wide open...

Best,
1859 Taku is the RN being stopped.
1860 Taku is the RN coming back to a place that stopped them last time and successfully clearing it.

It's a valid example of the RN adapting to a challenge.
 
Right, and the reason why was?

The Allies scouted Kronstadt twice during the war, under Napier in 1854 and Dundas again in 1855, and in both cases they chose not to attack because of the expected losses.

In 1854, they attacked Bomarsund (in the Aland Islands, i.e., closer to Sweden than Russia), and with the aid of 10,000 French troops and artillery ashore, took the archipelago.

In 1855, the Allies attacked Sveaborg (off Helsinki) and were repulsed. Not unlike 2nd Taku Forts (1859 version, where the RN lost three warships to the Chinese), Petropavlovsk, and the Dardanelles, ships operating alone didn't exactly sweep all before them.

But other than that, you're bang on.;)

Best,

Why do say the 1855 attack on Sveaborg was repulsed?

It was never the intention of the Allies to take Sveaborg at that time. The whole point of the operation was to see how the new gunboats and mortar vessels worked, destroy Russian supplies and cause the Russians to believe an invasion of Sveaborg was possible, thereby preventing them from sending reinforcements to the Crimea.

Dundas in 1855 was pretty much in the same position as Napier in 1854 in not having the right mix of assets (ships and personnel) to take Sveaborg in 1855. In wasn't until after the Great Armament was completed that the Baltic Fleet would have had the necessary number and types of ships to attempt an attack on Sveaborg. Even then, the British were dependent upon the French to provide the necessary land forces, which they weren't enthusiastic about providing.
Cheers.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Ah, yes, the 26 dispatch gunvessels, 156 gunboats, ~8 floating batteries and 54 mortar vessels the British built in 2 years.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
Was there anyway the Russians could have won the Crimean War after the French and British entered the war?

In a word 'no'. Once the RN was fully involved the Russian army was over extended facing off amphibious threats that might or might not happen and the Russian economy was destroyed. Meanwhile the cost to the British economy were easily affordable. It was a complete strategic rout.

If you want a different outcome you need to reduce the power of the RN (and to a lesser extent the French navy) considerably. Alternatively you need to give the Russians far greater strategic mobility for its army and a more robust economy.
 
The only other possibility is to change the diplomatic situation around. An Austria that is pro-Russia (to the point the Ottomans have to be seriously concerned about Austrian intervention), for instance would allow the Russians to make much more progress against the Turks, which could probably be parlayed into a better end to the war.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Proof that even a British admiral can learn from his mistakes

1859 Taku is the RN being stopped.
1860 Taku is the RN coming back to a place that stopped them last time and successfully clearing it.

It's a valid example of the RN adapting to a challenge.

Proof that even a British admiral can learn from his mistakes?;)

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, given that the post was in response to

Why do say the 1855 attack on Sveaborg was repulsed?

It was never the intention of the Allies to take Sveaborg at that time. The whole point of the operation was to see how the new gunboats and mortar vessels worked, destroy Russian supplies and cause the Russians to believe an invasion of Sveaborg was possible, thereby preventing them from sending reinforcements to the Crimea.

Dundas in 1855 was pretty much in the same position as Napier in 1854 in not having the right mix of assets (ships and personnel) to take Sveaborg in 1855. In wasn't until after the Great Armament was completed that the Baltic Fleet would have had the necessary number and types of ships to attempt an attack on Sveaborg. Even then, the British were dependent upon the French to provide the necessary land forces, which they weren't enthusiastic about providing.
Cheers.

Well, given that the post was in response to a comment that "forts" (plural) were being swept up by the Allies in the Baltic, one could suggest anyone who thinks an isolated fortress on an island closer to Sweden than Russia is in the same strategic situation as the harbor defenses of Helsinki or St. Petersburg, perhaps?;)

The point about the French is worth remembering, however; combined operations without a landing force tend to not be very combined... which is why one ends up with results like 2nd Taku Forts, Petropavlovsk, and the initial try at the Dardanelles.

Of course, even with a landing force, one can end up with results like the second try at the Dardanelles, or even Tanga.

Or 1st Wake.

Best,
 
Top